Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: it discloses the signed-out fallback ("an instrument's Kalshi price (signed_in: false)") and the side-effect-free enrichment triggered by contracts/stake_dollars (cost and payout), beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a long semicolon chain, and a large clause ("bid and ask in cents, yes_pct, no_pct, spread, status, close, game_state") enumerates return fields that the output schema already covers. Dense and readable but with redundant content and only moderate structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description is nearly sufficient: it covers input resolution forms, quoting output, enrichment via contracts/stake_dollars, and the signed-out behavior. The main gap is the undocumented `full` parameter and absent sibling routing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 80%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning the schema lacks — that the reference can be "a bet in words," which is not documented in any parameter description, and that contracts/stake_dollars produce cost and payout outputs. It does not explain the `full` flag, leaving one parameter undocumented in both places.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource and scope: "Live quote for one market," which separates it from list_markets/search_markets (many markets) and get_orderbook (depth). It does not name or contrast any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer how get_market relates to get_instrument or get_cross_venue_quotes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied — quoting a single market by ticker/id/slug/bet-in-words — and the accepted reference forms are useful context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or "use X instead" guidance despite many overlapping siblings (get_instrument, list_markets, get_orderbook).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.